Transline Technologies P Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, TDS, CPC, Ghaziabad

ITA 555/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9000 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH SINGH DAHIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K BANSAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; TDS
• Section: 234E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH FRIDAY-A NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA.NOS.543 TO 546/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 ITA.NOS.547 TO 550 & 555 TO 558/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15 ITA.NOS.551 TO 554 & 559 TO 562 /DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 M/S TRANSLINE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. 23A, 3 RD FLOOR, SHIVAJI MARG, MOTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-1100115 PAN-AABCT3687J VS. ACIT, TDS CPC, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD U.P. 201010 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SH. SURESH K. BANSAL, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SH. JAGDISH SINGH DAHIYA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 31/07/2020 DATE OF ORDER : 31/07/2020 ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M. ALL THESE APPEALS RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 -14 TO 2015-16 IN THE CASE OF M/S TRANSLINE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. C HALLENGING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-41, (I N SHORT LD. CIT(A)), ITA.NO.543/DEL/2020 & ORS. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TO 2015-16 PAGE | 2 NEW DELHI, IN THE CASE OF M/S TRANSLINE TECHNOLOGIE S PVT. LTD. WHEREUNDER THE FEE FOR DEFAULT IN LATE FILING TDS STATEMENT UN DER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BY THE LD. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD WAS CONFIRMED. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY T HE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (IN SHORT LD. AR) THAT THOUGH THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. TDS CPC, WAS DATED 28.09.2016, NO ORDER WAS COMMUNI CATED TO THE ASSESSEE; THAT THE ASSESSEE DOWNLOADED IT ON 12.12. 2018 AND, THEREFORE, THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION HAS TO BE TAKEN AS 12.12. 2018. ON THIS PREMISE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT RECKONING THE LI MITATION FOR FILING THE APPEAL SHALL BE FROM 12.12.2018. THE APPEALS PREFER RED ARE, THEREFORE, ARE WELL WITHIN THE TIME AND THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO C ONSIDER THE SAME IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE, BUT WENT OF RECORDING HIS OPINI ON THAT IN THE CASE OF TDS RETURNS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS DIGITAL SYSTEM FOR PROESSING OF TDS RETURNS AND ON PROCESSING OF THE SAME THE INTIMATIO N CONTAINING THE DEMAND, IF ANY, GETS AUTOMATICALLY COMMUNICATED TO ASSESSEE THROUGH E- MAIL OR MESSAGE. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, COULD HAV E DOWNLOADED THE SAID INTIMATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER SAID ORDER WAS PASSED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A() REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IF ANY IN THIS MATTER AND PROCEEDED TO DISMISSED THE APPEALS EXPARTE, HOL DING THAT THERE ARE NO VALID GROUNDS TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NO COMMUNICATION WAS RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY AFTER PASSING OF THE ORDER DAT ED 29.08.2016, BUT IT IS ONLY AFTER VERIFYING FROM THE PORTAL ON 12.12.2018, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT SUCH AN ORDER WAS PASSED AND, THEREFORE, DOWNLOADED THE ORDER AND FILED THE APPEALS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FROM ITA.NO.543/DEL/2020 & ORS. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TO 2015-16 PAGE | 3 12.12.2018 AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THE ISSUE RELATING TO LIMITATION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES BECAUSE, IT IS NOT THE CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT ANY COMMUNICATION ORDER DATED 29.08.2 016 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE LAW. 5. THE LD. DR JUSTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SYSTEM PROVIDED INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSEE BY W AY OF DIGITAL MEANS IMMEDIATELY AFTER PROCESSING OF THE TDS RETURN AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND OTHERWISE AND TO S AY THAT IT IS ONLY ON 12.12.2018 THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF PASSING OF THE ORDER AND THE LIMITATION HAS RECKONED FROM SAID DATED. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE FACT OF THE NON-SERVICE OF OR DER DATED 29.08.2016 STANDS UNREBUTTED FOR IT IS NOT CONTENDED OTHERWISE BY THE REVENUE OR PROVED BY PRODUCING ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THE SERVIC E OF SUCH ORDER ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR TO NOT E THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND TO GAIN BY FILING THE APPEAL WITH CONSIDE RABLE DELAY WHEN THE DEMAND WAS RAISED UNDER LAW. CONSIDERING THIS FACT , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON NOT TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E IN FILING THE APPEAL ON 31.12.2018. HAVING REGARD TO THE COMMON COURSE OF NATURAL EVENTS, HUMAN CONDUCT, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUSINESS IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ACCEPTABLE ONE. FURTH ER, WHEN THE TECHNICALITIES ARE PITTED AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL J USTICE, THE FORMER MUST GIVE WAY TO THE LATER. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , WHILE ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WE CONDONE THE DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THESE APPEALS. ITA.NO.543/DEL/2020 & ORS. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TO 2015-16 PAGE | 4 7. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT IMPUGNED ORDER HAS TO BE SET-ASIDE AND ALL THE APPEALS HAVE TO BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING THEM OF ON MERITS, AFTER AFFORDING AN OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCEPT THE SAME AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 31TH DAY OF JULY 2020. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 31 /07/2020 *SHEKHAR, SR. P.S.* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI